Abstract
Abstract
Background
Walking is important for maintaining physical and mental well-being in aged residential care (ARC). Walking behaviors are not well characterized in ARC due to inconsistencies in assessment methods and metrics as well as limited research regarding the impact of care environment, cognition, or physical function on these behaviors. It is recommended that walking behaviors in ARC are assessed using validated digital methods that can capture low volumes of walking activity.
Objective
This study aims to characterize and compare accelerometry-derived walking behaviors in ARC residents across different care levels, cognitive abilities, and physical capacities.
Methods
A total of 306 ARC residents were recruited from the Staying UpRight randomized controlled trial from 3 care levels: rest home (n=164), hospital (n=117), and dementia care (n=25). Participants’ cognitive status was classified as mild (n=87), moderate (n=128), or severe impairment (n=61); physical function was classified as high-moderate (n=74) and low-very low (n=222) using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Short Physical Performance Battery cutoff scores, respectively. To assess walking, participants wore an accelerometer (Axivity AX3; dimensions: 23×32.5×7.6 mm; weight: 11 g; sampling rate: 100 Hz; range: ±8 g; and memory: 512 MB) on their lower back for 7 days. Outcomes included volume (ie, daily time spent walking, steps, and bouts), pattern (ie, mean walking bout duration and alpha), and variability (of bout length) of walking. Analysis of covariance was used to assess differences in walking behaviors between groups categorized by level of care, cognition, or physical function while controlling for age and sex. Tukey honest significant difference tests for multiple comparisons were used to determine where significant differences occurred. The effect sizes of group differences were calculated using Hedges g (0.2-0.4: small, 0.5-0.7: medium, and 0.8: large).
Results
Dementia care residents showed greater volumes of walking (P<.001; Hedges g=1.0-2.0), with longer (P<.001; Hedges g=0.7-0.8), more variable (P=.008 vs hospital; P<.001 vs rest home; Hedges g=0.6-0.9) bouts compared to other care levels with a lower alpha score (vs hospital: P<.001; Hedges g=0.9, vs rest home: P=.004; Hedges g=0.8). Residents with severe cognitive impairment took longer (P<.001; Hedges g=0.5-0.6), more variable (P<.001; Hedges g=0.4-0.6) bouts, compared to those with mild and moderate cognitive impairment. Residents with low-very low physical function had lower walking volumes (total walk time and bouts per day: P<.001; steps per day: P=.005; Hedges g=0.4-0.5) and higher variability (P=.04; Hedges g=0.2) compared to those with high-moderate capacity.
Conclusions
ARC residents across different levels of care, cognition, and physical function demonstrate different walking behaviors. However, ARC residents often present with varying levels of both cognitive and physical abilities, reflecting their complex multimorbid nature, which should be considered in further work. This work has demonstrated the importance of considering a nuanced framework of digital outcomes relating to volume, pattern, and variability of walking behaviors among ARC residents.